RAJ KUMAR LAL Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application made, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by the petitioner, who is Deputy Director of School Education (under suspension), Tawang District, Tawang, raises two important questions, namely, (i) whether appointment of Respondent No.2 (who is informant of Tawang Police Station Case No. 21/2000 under Section 409/120(B) IPC lodged against the petitioner) as Enquiry Officer in the departmental proceedings drawn against the petitioner on the same/similar facts, which have given rise to the police case aforementioned, is legal, proper, justified and/or valid and (ii) whether, during pendency of Tawang Police Station Case No.21/2000 aforementioned, departmental proceedings drawn against the petitioner can be allowed to proceed.

(2.) Since a large number of legal battles and departmental proceedings have preceded the filing of this writ petition, it is but natural that facts, necessary for disposal of this writ petition, are somewhat cumbersome in nature. In a narrow compass, however, petitioner's case may be put as follows :- The petitioner joined as Assistant Director (Material) in the State Resource Centre for Adult Education under the Directorate of Education, at Itanagar, on 12.10.89. Since his appointment, the petitioner has been subjected to frequent and premature transfers, he has been involved in false criminal cases and departmental proceedings, he has been unjustly placed under suspension and denied promotion. Left with no alternative, the petitioner instituted Civil Rule No.2533 of 1993 and on the basis of the judgment and order dated 6.9.94, passed therein, the petitioner was promoted, but his harassment by way of subjecting him to premature transfers has continued. When the petitioner was sought to be prematurely transferred from his present post of Deputy Director of School Education, Tawang to Bomdila, to act as Principal of Higher Secondary School at Bomdila, the petitioner made a representation dated 02.08.2000, which was forwarded to the Government by the respondent No.2. As the Government did not respond to the petitioner's representation aforementioned, he instituted Writ Petition(c) No. 4330 of 2000 and vide order, dated 9.8.2000 passed in this case, petitioner's transfer was stayed. Having come to know of the stay order passed in the said writ petition, the respondent No. 2 became hostile to the petitioner and lodged a complaint, vide his letter No. TC-45(PT)/2000/ dated 7.9.2000, addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Tawang District, Tawang, implicating the petitioner on false accusation of misappropriation/over-drawal of money, which resulted into registration of Tawang Police Station Case No. 21/2000 (corresponding to GR Case No.23/2000) under Section 409/120(B) of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. Notwithstanding the pendency of the petitioner' s application for pre-arrest bail made before this Court, he was arrested by the police in connection with the case aforementioned, but was subsequently enlarged on bail by order, dated 27.11.2000, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Tawang, Arunachal Pradesh. In the meanwhile, however, the petitioner was placed under suspension by an order bearing No.SEDN/41/93/PT, dated 13.11.2000, which was communicated to the petitioner vide Memo No.SEDN/41/93/Pt, dated 15.11.2000, but for several months, thereafter, neither disciplinary proceeding was initiated, nor was the petitioner paid subsistence allowance. In the past also, when the petitioner was, similarly, involved in disciplinary proceedings, his subsistence allowance was not paid to him for a long period and the petitioner had to approach this Court seeking direction(s) for obtaining his subsistence allowance. Though the petitioner prayed for revoking his suspension by submitting applications, dated 12.12.2000 and 3.1.2000, the same was not revoked and it was only after the petitioner submitted a reminder thereto by his letter dated 10.4.2001, that by Memorandum No.SEDN/41/93/PT, dated 9.4.2001 issued by the Respondent No.1, the petitioner was given notice of a departmental proceeding drawn against him and was accordingly served with article of charges, statements of imputations, etc. In the meanwhile, police had already submitted, on 31.12.2000, charge-sheet against the petitioner, in Tawang Police Station Case No.21/2000 aforementioned. Moreover, after the issuance of the Memorandum, dated 9.4.2001 aforementioned, Tawang police examined, on 19.4.2001, the respondent No.2 as a prosecution witness/informant of the case and submitted, on 19.4.2001 itself, a supplementary charge-sheet against the petitioner. Immediately upon being served with the Memorandum, dated 9.4.2001, aforementioned, the petitioner vide his letter, dated 30.4.2001. requested the respondent No.1 to furnish copies of the documents relied upon and listed in Annexure-III to the said Memorandum, but the copies thereof were not furnished to the petitioner and he had to submit, under such constraints, the written statement of his defence vide his letter, dated 3.5.2001. In his written statement, the petitioner stated, inter alia, that on the same/similar set of facts a criminal case, as aforesaid was pending against the petitioner, he was, on account of the pendency of the criminal case, handicapped and not in a position to effectively represent himself in the departmental proceedings inasmuch as he was unable to disclose his defence and he could not have been compelled to disclose his defence until before the trial of the criminal charge(s), on the same allegations as were made in the departmental proceedings, was over. This apart, despite the fact that the respondent No.2 was the informant of Tawang Police Station Case No.21/2000 aforementioned, which was lodged against the petitioner, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh vide his order No.SEDN/41/93/PT, dated 4.7.2001, appointed the respondent No.2 as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges formulated against the petitioner. The petitioner vide his representation, dated 20.7.2001, objected to the appointment of respondent No.2 as Enquiry Officer. Though the petitioner was granted station have permission by the State Government for a period of 40 days from 17.12.2001 to 27.1.2002 for the purpose of enabling him to hold consultations with the his legal advisers in connection with the Writ Petition (C) No.4330 of 2000 aforementioned and also for enabling him to visit his home town, Gorakhpur, to attend to some domestic work, the respondents No.2 being hostile to the petitioner, fixed 28.12.2001 for holding enquiry against the petitioner. The petitioner claims that left with no other alternative, he has, now, approached this Court seeking redress of his grievances.

(3.) I have heard Mr. T.C. Khetri, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. R.H. Nabam, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate who has appeared on behalf of the State respondents.